Why removal, not the barrier, is where the data points
The argument that doffing — not barrier rating — should drive PPE-kit design is an empirical one, not a stylistic preference. During the 2014–15 West African Ebola epidemic the WHO recorded health workers as roughly 3.9 percent of all cases overall, with the figure climbing as high as 50 percent in some treatment settings, and field reviews repeatedly traced infections to self-contamination during the removal of contaminated PPE under heat and fatigue rather than to penetration of the fabric. WHO has separately estimated that health workers in an outbreak zone can be up to 32 times more likely to be infected than the general public — a risk concentrated at the doffing step.
The corrective is instructive. As coordinated infection-prevention support, trained doffing observers, and standardised buddy-assisted protocols spread through the epidemic, the health-worker share of new cases fell from about 12 percent in mid-2014 to roughly 1 percent by early 2015. That improvement came from the operating system around the PPE — the marked doffing zone, the chlorine touchpoints, the observer role, the disciplined sequence — not from a more impermeable suit. A kit that ships barriers without that system buys a fraction of the protection the data shows is achievable. This is why every component decision on this page is reverse-engineered from a clean exit.